What Unconditional Credence in Individual Desert Claims Does Retributivism Require?

11 Pages Posted: 13 May 2018  

Emad H. Atiq

Princeton University - Department of Philosophy

Date Written: April 29, 2018

Abstract

Punishing a person based on low unconditional credence in their deservingness to be punished is consistent with retributivist deontological principles. Negative retributivism absolutely prohibits the intentional or knowing infliction of undeserved harm on individuals identified as undeserving, not the intentional or knowing infliction of risks of undeserved harm on individuals. Meanwhile, the knowing infliction of undeserved harm on some unidentified individuals generates not overriding reasons against punishment, but pro tanto reasons against punishment that are to be weighed against other non-overriding reasons for punishment like crime prevention. The upshot is that uncertainty regarding any identified person’s deservingness to be punished does not entail that punishment is generally impermissible if negative retributivism is true. One might be misled into thinking that impossibly high levels of unconditional credence in individual desert claims is morally required by failing to distinguish our actual criminal law practices, which are extremely harsh and unjustifiable, from criminal law as it ought to be.

Keywords: Retributivism, Uncertainty, Reasonable Doubt, Punishment, Desert

Suggested Citation

Atiq, Emad H., What Unconditional Credence in Individual Desert Claims Does Retributivism Require? (April 29, 2018). University of Illinois Law Review, 2018. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3170488

Emad H. Atiq (Contact Author)

Princeton University - Department of Philosophy ( email )

Princeton, NJ
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
14
Abstract Views
39
PlumX